Mid Hants Railway Operational Matters

A better view of 12082, ex-12049, ex-12082.
@mdewell , if you'd like it for your site (like last time) feel free.
Pat

 

Always happy to improve my database and that's better than the current picture so I will replace with this one. Thank you.
http://www.heritage-railways.com/locosdb/locosdb2.php?RefNo=287

 

You're welcome.
Pat

 

For those interested 50027 is booked out on the Watercress Wanderer this Sunday

 

Is there a loco roster for the Mid-Hants published anywhere? I can't see one on the new web-site

 

'Modern Railways' has just dropped through the letterbox. I see that we have won a Special Award Golden Whistle for the Steam Illuminations trains. Well, done us!
Pat

 

Indeed. Well done to everyone who had anything to do with Steam Illuminations.

 

Would they ever think about swopping the black5 for Repton or 777 as these are south engines on the wrong line and the balack5 is not really from that area. I would also move the prarie at peak rail and swap it with the austerity at Bodmin railway. And the standard at Dartmouth and swap it for the hall on battlefield railway. Is there an update on kilmersdon overhaul going to be going out?

 

The summer lunch train is back!
https://watercressline.co.uk/experiences/summer-lunch-train/

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

 

Oh boy, this can of worms...
At the extreme end of the spectrum, S160 No. 5197 is currently about 5000 miles away from where it worked before preservation ...so by your logic you'd want to send that back to China?!

As @Big Al says, the locomotive owners can have their engines based wherever they choose.

 

While I know I shouldn't bite on what is an obvious troll. However, let's assume that this isn't a troll.

It is the same logic of authenticity that has been used to justify the eviction of the S&DRT from the WSR.

It would also mean that industrial locomotives would be screwed. For example, I can think of an industrial 0-4-0 that is currently under overhaul in Hampshire, that isn't from Hampshire, that would never have run on the line that is currently overhauling it, indeed, it only has a geographical (rather than company connection) to the society that has preserved it.

So, yeah, damn these engines running on the wrong line.

 

It's also worth bearing in mind that the Black 5 actually is a historically appropriate loco to have on the line, given Black 5's were known to have worked over the line pre preservation.

 

People are allowed to be a little, shall we say, naive…

I personally think it’s easy to spot the trolls and the all together more benign, harmless posts, like the one you replied to. Give the bloke some slack, and if you can’t, use the ‘ignore’ function.

Simon

 

There is some debate as to whether this is wummery.

I strongly disagree with the idea of using ignore. It is a slippery slope to an echo chamber if you start to filter out voices whose views you find annoying/objectionable.

 

It's a good game to play down the pub, which engines would you swap for which. Helps pass an hour or two on a long winter night. Not going to happen however on a grand scale.

 

One snag with using the Ignore facility (as I do at present for one person) is that quotations from that person in other people's replies are also hidden, sometimes causing those replies to make little or no sense. It can take a while to work out that a post may be a reply to a hidden one and then to scroll up and look for a missing post number. I am not sure whether that is better or worse than seeing the original post from person X, ignoring it, and then working out which subsequent posts to ignore as well.

 

I seem to recall a fairly big engine-go-round a few years back mainly involving GWR prairies and panniers but also featuring 34007 Wadebridge. The net result was a number of engines moving to more appropriate homes, but such events are very rare. What is more, some locos which have ended up on heritage railways hundreds of miles away from their original sphere of operation do become very popular in their adopted home - 34092 City of Wells on the East Lancs (and the Worth Valley before that) and 35006 P&O on the Glos-Warwicks spring to mind, likewise 47493 on the Spa Valley. Furthermore....

...sometimes as Dan has pointed out, a loco (or class) has more connection with a given line than may be apparent at first glance and 45379 is a good example. Indeed, not only did a Black Five (45493) famously work over the line in 1966, but 45379 itself, being a Willesden engine, was rostered for at least one excursion from the LMR through to the south coast - probably Brighton - in June 1963. Although as only an armchair MHRPS member, my views don't count for much, I personally would be rather sad if there was any talk of selling off 45379. I think it's a rather fine loco. What's there not to like about a Black Five? Thankfully, I believe plenty of other MHRPS members feel the same.

 

Sure, but there's a link towards the bottom of the page that says something like 'show ignored content', which will temporarily unveil the full post and anything from an ignored user. I ignore 5-6 people (mostly folks who don't still post here, to be honest, but one or two still present) and don't find it generally affects the flow, and in the event of any confusion, it's easily cleared with a click on the 'show ignored content' link.

Simon